I appreciate the clarification from people who are more familiar with camera equpment than a lot of us. However, this does nothing to answer the
question implied in the thread title. Why won`t NASA respond to these inquiries? I don`t know who inquired. I know they don`t have to respond to every
Joe Shmo who defied the official account of the moon landing. But it`s just a thought...

Originally posted by doctor j and inmate c5779
I appreciate the clarification from people who are more familiar with camera equpment than a lot of us. However, this does nothing to answer
the question implied in the thread title. Why won`t NASA respond to these inquiries? I don`t know who inquired. I know they don`t have to respond to
every Joe Shmo who defied the official account of the moon landing. But it`s just a thought...

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

As covered previously, the FOIA inquiry did not ask for specific info, ie: data, photo or printed matter. It apparently asked for technical
answers to questions posed by the OP.

Your post on the top of page 3 says it all (mountain perspective one). I love how none of the OS devotees are touching on that one

Probably
because you can't argue with it.. and if you can then please I challenge anyone to poke some holes in it!
The problem with believing the OS is that they have to believe all of it to the tee, and as such when a blatant falsehood is brought to light,
it is adamantly ignored.
And then a few pages later another one asked for a specific example EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE YOU ALREADY PROVIDED ON PAGE 3..
...
BAH!

Your post on the top of page 3 says it all (mountain perspective one). I love how none of the OS devotees are touching on that one

Probably
because you can't argue with it.. and if you can then please I challenge anyone to poke some holes in it!
The problem with believing the OS is that they have to believe all of it to the tee, and as such when a blatant falsehood is brought to light,
it is adamantly ignored.
And then a few pages later another one asked for a specific example EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE YOU ALREADY PROVIDED ON PAGE 3..
...
BAH!

I just said, it is possible. Maybe the original photos are unusable or there is something they don't want you to know

Before I saw the new jaxa elevation data and the direct comparison I didn't also believe they where there. But I don't tink japan and nasa are
faking together, only to achieve the same results as i postet on page 3.

There are many things odd on the whole Apollo mission (like the "paper" ship) or the strange movements of the Eagle on the moons orbit.

It looks like it stops rotating in a impossible way...

But they landed on the moon, 100%. The Selene/Jaxa/kaguya Data is the proof. -> www.jaxa.jp...

I didn't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been posted, but here is a great website someone shared here on ATS awhile back
that talk about the cameras (in full detail) and show the pictures from the moon landing, and basically prove that they are fake.

To respond to the OP, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting a response about anything concerning the FOIA. It took a few months to get responses back
about my friend who was murdered by the FBI (see my link in my signature) and the CIA is basically trying to stall me, and the Marines told me they
are "processing my request" so I doubt I'll be getting much, if any, information from either of them.

I just want to add, make sure you are aware of the costs when asking for a request. The first 2hrs of research time is free, and the first 100 pages
of paper are free, after that you must pay. However, they cannot charge you without you committing to the fee (you can tell them you're only willing
to spend so many dollars, be as specific as you want).

I'm glad you're able to justify a papier mache looking spacecraft that's flown a quarter million miles and lands on the moon . . .

GF, at least find out what NASA say happened, rather than wasting your energy arguing against your own misguided assumptions. No spacecraft flew a
quarter on a million miles and then landed on the moon. Not in the sceptics story, and not in the official story.

That "papier mache looking spacecraft" was the landing module, and only used to ferry the astronauts from the orbiting spacecraft to the surface of
the moon, and then back again.

The Apollo Lunar Module (LM) was the lander portion of the Apollo spacecraft built for
the US Apollo program by Grumman to carry a crew of two from lunar orbit to the surface and back. It was ferried to lunar orbit by its companion
Command/Service Module, a separate spacecraft approximately twice as heavy, which took the astronauts home to Earth. After completing its mission, the
LM was discarded.

So, you can see just how "light" the spacecraft was after it had used its fuel to launch up to Lunar orbit for the rendezvous with the CM.

Also, it is highly probable that the YouTube clip shown is not real-time, but has been sped up. I do not think it was shot at the normal 30 fps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Topic: The photos of the Sun are perfectly normal, when you understand even BASIC photography techniques! Heck, I only studied photography for one
semester in High School (many Moons ago) so I'm not an expert, but I can comprehend that this OP has no basis. It has no claim to
make, it is founded on complete ignorance of photographic reality.

The Moon Landing was not faked. None of the claims made by conspiracy theorists to support a hoax hold any water at all and all have been debunked.

I don't think they all have, actually.

Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

I think the "Moon Landing" that the world saw could well have been faked but that doesn't mean the US didn't put men on the Moon.

Think about it.

Here we have an occasion where man is stepping into the unknown. For all NASA etc. knew there could've been hidden alien bases or whatever up there,
or something that the general populace of Earth maybe shouldn't see. Look how hard the US has tried to surpress info on UFOs over the years, many
observers claim that any form of disclosure would cause mass panic/riots/breakdown of society. So does it make sense to show the actual Moon
landing live on TV? A situation where anything could've happened? Imagine a 'little green man' popping his head up out of a crater to say "Hi!"
The public would've gone nuts!

Plus the last thing NASA would have wanted was something to go wrong live on TV as it would most likely affect their future funding, they needed
everything to go smoothly. The best way to ensure that was to have a fake landing for public consumption, and keep the real landing on the
hush-hush just to be safe.

That has come out of your imagination. Please do yourself a favor, go to a library, look for actual books on the Space Program, and Apollo in
particular (but you must understand all that came before, in context, to comprehend it all).

If not the Library, then at least take the time to read the huge amount of information that's on the Web...the real stuff, not the "Hoax" crapolla!

Look, It's obvious that you people who think that NASA staged the Moon Landings are just "Clutching At Straws" and hoping that someone, somewhere
will think you're an expert on the subject. How many photo's do you take that never seem quite right?

There are a whole host of problems when it come to taking photo's. I guess there'd be a whole lot more on the Moon. Without an Atmosphere and
"Color Temp" differences between the Earth and the Moon, You'd be sure to OverExpose some of your Photo's and this is exactly what I think has
happened here. Some of these Photo's are OverExposed. No wonder the Sun doesn't look right.

Taking Photo's with Film is not quite as simple as everyone thinks it is. I don't blame NASA for not responding to FOIA Requests about another
"Pretend Conspiracy" about a few Photo's.

And for you people who start to get on the Bandwagon about this "Photo Of The HUGE Sun/Floodlights", You need to get a brain and use it yourself,
seriously. It's people like you who are easily lead down the wrong path. Sheeple.

It just seems that with every Lame thread that get;s started here on ATS, there are a lot of people who "Jump On" as if they know what they're
talking about when in fact, they don't.

This isn't directed at anybody in particular and is just speculative opinion: personally I think they landed, but the Apollo 11 film was faked
because NASA wanted to be sure of producing something to show Congress and the world to validate the project and inspire further funding. Once the
ploy had worked and approval won they didn't need to worry. Like the forensic economists say, follow the money.
Then there's the issue of the anomalies.
As far as films from the later missions go, obfuscation was largely down to clever camera positioning. But somehow they managed to overlook all sorts
of anomalies in the stills photos taken on the ground. Not just the low-res shots from orbit that never look 100% convincing, but close-up Hasselblad
shots that were taken and publicised before anybody had thought of image enhancement or zoom-in browsers, or even the web.
most of the anomalous objects are only clearly visible at 2x zoom, and IMHO it is conceivable that NASA simply didn't even try doing that with the
originals before they released them.
They just can't have done, and the astronauts taking the photos didn't either. I have already posted about this one before and forgive me if you
are already aware of it, but Apollo 17 AS17-137-20993 1400Kb version at 2x zoom: if you haven't seen it before and you are not a sceptic numbskull
the floor of that crater will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
Maybe it went like this: NASA went looking for the big anomalies they had seen from orbits of the earlier Apollo missions , such as the craters which
look suspiciously like quarries, and the six sided hexagonal South Massif.
They literally overlooked the small stuff. Apart from that humungous digging machine I found of course.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.